Notices
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: new energy resource

  1. #1 new energy resource 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    myanmar
    Posts
    3
    i have found an interesting video at http://vimeo.com/13407358 . it say new power resource .can it be possible?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    21
    Well, i wonder myself could it be possible? - Driving magnets inside a tube or whatever that was. But how can you create energy with magnets?


    Radiation sometimes causes horrible mutations, which could cause horrific abominations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    No.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    21
    Thought so.
    Radiation sometimes causes horrible mutations, which could cause horrific abominations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 nothing 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    myanmar
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Thorium
    Well, i wonder myself could it be possible? - Driving magnets inside a tube or whatever that was. But how can you create energy with magnets?
    i know it is impossible. .this is my friend's idea.but i can not prove that his machine is impossible.how can i prove it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    I don't quite get the idea to begin with.

    Apparently - from what little I understood from the presentation - you have a couple of magnets inside a tube. A motor sets the magnets (and possibly the tube) in motion, making them spin. The motor is then removed, and the magnets continue to spin.

    Well this could be done with any rotating mass (such as a flywheel), with or without magnets in it. It will continue to spin until friction and other resistive forces sap it of its cinetic energy.

    Perhaps you mean to use the magnets as a frictionless bearing. Sounds nice, but it's not perfect: moving magnets are bound to generate some electric currents, and the energy will slowly but surely get lost that way (seen from the mechanical side, it "feels" like the drag experienced by a rotor submersed in a fluid).

    Even if you do have frictionless bearings, your rotating mass can only give back the energy the motor has put into it. It cannot become a net power source.
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    The "interesting video" is nothing more than a cartoon. There is no explanation of how it is supposed to work, or any evidence that it does work. You might as well have posted a link to a Roadrunner cartoon video where Wile E. Coyote runs over the edge of a cliff and hovers a few seconds in mid-air before falling. That cartoon would not be evidence that a coyote could hover in mid-air. That would violate the laws of physics. In the same way, the cartoon you posted violates the laws of physics, mainly the law of conservation of energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    27
    I'm definitely on the skeptical side of what that video is showing. But then I can across this website:

    http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/indexen.htm

    I would like for someone to meaningfully explain what it is that I'm seeing, because everything I know tells me that this is impossible.....and yet there it is. I may not be an engineer, but I'm sincerely learning. I may come off as a arguementative or a debator, but I learn that "the purpose of debate is not win, but to educate".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    There is quite a bit of discussion of this topic on Wikipedia's Steorn discussion page, including Naudin's replication.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steorn
    Basically, the Naudin web site is self-published, has not been independently verified, and is not considered reliable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    There is quite a bit of discussion of this topic on Wikipedia's Steorn discussion page, including Naudin's replication.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steorn
    Basically, the Naudin web site is self-published, has not been independently verified, and is not considered reliable.
    Thanks alot! That was on point! :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    27
    This is the best explanation that I've been able to find regarding Steorn and their claims. It's a layman summary but considering that Steorn isn't giving up any information about what they propose they can do without you having to fork over $500 (which is kind of suspect in itself), it'll have to do. Check it out and share your thoughts:

    The principle of conservation of energy (CoE) implies that it requires the same amount of work (that is, a transfer of the same amount of energy) to do something as it takes to undo it. Take for example a bouncing ball. The energy you put into lifting a ball up off the ground is stored in the ball as potential energy. When the ball is dropped, gravity pulls it downward, converting that potential energy into velocity. The energy in the balls's velocity when it hits the ground is exactly as much energy as you put into it by lifting it up (minus a bit lost to friction) -- so when it bounces back up, it will reach the same height from which it was dropped (well, just a bit lower, due to the energy lost to friction). The point is, exactly as much energy is released as was first received by the ball.

    CoE also implies "temporal invariance" -- that is to say, it doesn't matter how long a time the work takes, it'll still be the same amount of work. It takes as much energy to lift a ball from the ground to a particular height regardless of whether it's lifted over the course of a second or a minute. Either way it's received the same amount of potential energy, and will bounce back to the same height when dropped.

    But what if that last implication wasn't always true? What if the amount of time it took you to lift a ball three feet from the ground determined how much potential energy that ball received? If you take 5 seconds to lift the ball 3 feet, then you drop it, the ball will bounce back up a bit less than 3 feet. But if you lift it in just one second instead, then drop it, it bounces back 4 feet! In this case the ball received more potential energy from being lifted quickly than you put into lifting it. It isn't difficult to imagine how a machine could be set up to store that extra bit of energy in a spring or a battery, and use it to lift the ball quickly again. Yet more extra energy would come out of this second lifting, which can be used to lift it again, and so on. The result is a perpetually bouncing ball, with energy to spare.

    Of course, gravity and balls don't work that way. But -- says Sean -- magnets do. There is a little studied effect, discovered in the eighteen hundreds, called magnetic viscosity. Normally the term viscosity is used in reference to liquids. It is a measure of a liquid's resistance to deforming when under stress -- a liquid's "thickness". If you've ever dived into water from a great enough height, you've discovered that viscosity is temporally variant - it takes more energy to move through a viscous liquid quickly than slowly. Dive off a boat into the ocean and you'll feel it when you hit the water. Fall from a plane and hit the ocean much faster, and you might as well be hitting concrete. That's the temporal variance of viscosity.

    According to Sean, when two magnets are brought together, magnetic viscosity results in a similar temporal variance. As the two magnets come together (poles aligned so they repel one another), there is a small lag as the force between the magnets increases. The lag is on the scale of milliseconds, but it's there. And that means that it takes less energy to bring two magnets together quickly, not giving the lag enough time to catch up, than it does to bring them together slowly. So, bring together two magnets quickly, then let them repel more slowly, and they've put out more energy than you had to put in to get them together. As was the case with the magic bouncing ball, this effect can be exploited -- a mechanism could be set up to store the extra energy after each cycle and put it into the next cycle, and the magnets will continue "bouncing" in and out indefinitely, with extra energy to spare. That extra energy, then, can be output to an electric generator or to any other use... it's "free".

    Sean made another interesting claim. In the last few years physicists have discovered two anomalies in the way the universe works. Galaxies are spinning much faster than they should be according to the Newtonian laws of motion, and the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. These problems have so stumped scientists that they've posited two new concepts -- "dark matter" and "dark energy" -- as the explanation. For the math to work out, 96% of the universe would need to be made up of dark matter and dark energy; everything we understand in the universe takes up only the other 4%. This is established science. What Sean brings to this is the idea that, if temporal variance is taken into account, the anomalous effects can be precisely explained -- there's no more need for dark matter or dark energy. This is a bold claim about the nature of the universe, saying that it's not just Orbo that violates the law of conservation of energy - the very expansion of the universe does the same thing.
    "I am not teaching you anything. I can just help you to explore yourself and realize the cause of your ignorance; an appropriate medicine for a particular ailment."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by dnahotep (citing somebody else)
    The principle of conservation of energy (CoE) implies that it requires the same amount of work (that is, a transfer of the same amount of energy) to do something as it takes to undo it.
    No it does not. This statement is an example of how people with too little scientific background "translate" scientific truths into everyday language. Such translation in itself, when possible, is a good idea - but in order to translate something, you need to understand the original.

    Riding a bike up a sandy path takes a different amount of energy than riding it down the same path. The same goes for squeezing toothpaste out of the tube and pushing it back in, or breaking a glass and making it whole again.

    Quote Originally Posted by dnahotep (citing somebody else)
    If you've ever dived into water from a great enough height, you've discovered that viscosity is temporally variant - it takes more energy to move through a viscous liquid quickly than slowly. Dive off a boat into the ocean and you'll feel it when you hit the water. Fall from a plane and hit the ocean much faster, and you might as well be hitting concrete. That's the temporal variance of viscosity.
    First - viscosity (as opposed to solid-body friction) does not have to change in order to produce a very different amount of drag at different speeds.

    Second - yes, viscous drag can be nonlinear, which might be described as a change of viscosity depending on speed. But even so, I cannot see how you would get free energy out of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by dnahotep (citing somebody else)
    According to Sean, when two magnets are brought together, magnetic viscosity results in a similar temporal variance. As the two magnets come together (poles aligned so they repel one another), there is a small lag as the force between the magnets increases. The lag is on the scale of milliseconds, but it's there. And that means that it takes less energy to bring two magnets together quickly, not giving the lag enough time to catch up, than it does to bring them together slowly.
    Magnetism has been studied for centuries, and is very well understood. When magnets move around at significant speeds, we are dealing with electromagnetism, which also has been meticulously researched. In particular, the effects of eddy currents are quite similar to viscous drag in fluids. However, their result is always to convert some of the energy into heat which is then dissipated - not to create free energy.

    To summarize, whoever wrote that text needs to wake up to some bad news:

    You can't make a valuable scientific contribution by just writing something that's long and complicated. I hate to be nagging, but making sense is a vital requirement. Another is staying in touch with the established corpus of human knowledge. Even if you question it, you should state exactly which of its tenets you propose to reject or supersede, give some very good reason for doing so, and clearly formulate the new constructs you want to replace them with.
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    this is one place where i agree completely with Harold. there is no way that you can get any more energy out of this system than you get it. leszek's idea of using it as a nearly frictionless bearing is interesting. but it's still not completely frictionless and will not generate perpetual motion or new energy
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •